Ukraine

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Friday 31st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I join others in warmly welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, to the House and thank him so much for his inspirational maiden speech.

As we all know, it is now more than three years since Russia’s wicked invasion of Ukraine, which shattered the peace of Europe and the understanding on which our post-Cold War security rested. What began as an attempt to subjugate a foreign neighbour has called into question the positionality of an entire generation, as we in the West continue to falter in our resolve, resilience and the values we claim to cherish.

This time last year, this House spoke of the courage and endurance both of the Ukrainian people and of the western alliance supporting them. Since then, the world has changed drastically, with the return of President Trump, who has forced us to reconsider approaches we thought were axiomatic. Where NATO allies once spoke in unison, there is now always a sense of looking over one’s shoulder to see where Washington might have landed on an issue. Yet, amid the shifting language of diplomacy, one truth remains constant: Ukraine’s fight is our fight, for the purposes of sovereignty, freedom and the rule of law.

Noble Lords will remember that, in February, our International Relations and Defence Committee reflected soberly on what the war has revealed, concluding that Russia’s invasion marked the return of conventional warfare to Europe and, with that, the end of complacency. We have had to face the sombre reality that NATO’s defence posture has failed and that the United Kingdom and her allies alike are unprepared for war. Indeed, our defence industrial base, resources and endurance were all found lacking. Granted, the defence review began to address some of these weaknesses, but, if we want to be taken seriously on the world stage and protect our security from non-traditional threats, this is only the beginning. Our security cannot depend upon assumptions nor upon the good will of others. Instead, it must rest on readiness, risk mitigation and realism.

While the people of Ukraine continue to fight under relentless bombardment and humble us all with their courage, the least they can ask of the democratic nations of the world is not to falter in our championing of them. Be it through military supply, humanitarian relief or diplomatic advocacy, the voice of United Kingdom still carries. We must ensure that it continues to do so, not through rhetoric alone, but through consistent action. Tears in the fabric of the western alliance only embolden Moscow and signal to others, such as Beijing and Tehran, that the resolve of democracies is fallible.

It is undeniable that we have learned a great deal from Ukraine in terms of innovation and strategy in the last few years, but we must not forget to consider the moral arena too. Ukraine reminds us that freedom is never free, that deterrence must be actionable and that the financial burden of defence can never outweigh a national duty. As the world becomes ever more divided and relations that have existed for generations start to change, we see new powers coming to the fore, and the United Kingdom must remain centre stage. We stand by Ukraine not merely because it is right, but because our own peace depends upon its defence against the tyranny of oppression. Let us therefore recommit in word, in will and in deed to ensuring that Ukraine prevails, that aggression fails and that liberty endures.

Defence Spending: Scotland

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Northern Ireland, as with the whole of the UK, including Scotland, will benefit from the increases in defence spending. Just one example of that is the huge new contract given to Thales in Belfast, which will generate a huge number of jobs. When you add not only direct employment at Thales but also the small and medium-sized businesses that will benefit from that, Northern Ireland will benefit from that increase in defence spending as well as other parts of the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, what role does the Minister see Scotland continuing to play in the UK’s ability to monitor and respond to threats in the North Atlantic and the Arctic region?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Scotland is crucial to the defence of the United Kingdom, but beyond that is the importance of the role that the bases in Scotland play in the defence of, for example, the Arctic and the Greenland Gap. One example of that is RAF Lossiemouth, which is a crucial RAF base for the Ministry of Defence and for the defence of our country. The aircraft based there, such as the Typhoons and the various intelligence aircraft that are there to gather information, are crucial to us. RAF Lossiemouth, along with other such facilities in Scotland, are crucial to the defence of our country.

Undersea Internet Cables

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

To deal with the last part of the question first, I am pleased to see the Prime Minister in Kyiv pursuing what has been a cross-government—and across all parties in majority—defence of freedom and democracy in Ukraine and what that means for the rest of Europe and beyond. With respect to the other points that my noble friend made, he is right to draw attention to the increasing threats to critical underwater infrastructure. The military option is one option that we need to use. I say that because, as I have said at this Dispatch Box before in answer to, I believe, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and others, we must deter people from doing things in the first place. The use of maritime assets and underwater drones, the actions of the Joint Expeditionary Force and those of NATO are key to protecting these vital cable links on which much of our livelihoods, data, telecommunications, energy and so on depend. Military resource is one way in which we have to deal with that.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, in light of recent concerns over security of undersea communication cables and the involvement of foreign state actors in potential sabotage, how do the Government plan to balance their intention to reset relations with China while addressing the risk posed by Chinese entities to our critical infrastructure?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. The Government’s position with respect to China, as I have said on many occasions, is to co-operate, to compete and to challenge. Those are the three strands of the policy. The Ministry of Defence will challenge China, where appropriate or necessary, to ensure that the international rules-based order is protected, whether that is to do with critical underwater infrastructure or with other areas in the world where the rights of navigation and free passage are threatened. The Ministry of Defence is responsible for that, not alone but with our allies, and we will challenge China where necessary to ensure that the international rules-based order is protected.

Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [HL]

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 11th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I have very few military credentials I can burnish, in contrast to many noble Lords making valuable contributions today. However, I want to add my voice to those welcoming this Bill because, as a former leader of a local authority, I am utterly convinced that we need to do more to support families under pressure. This is a good way to describe military families, most of whom cope extremely well with the challenges they face, not least because of the supportive culture in which they are often immersed—often, but not always—on a military base.

The Armed Forces covenant and other measures, including the flexible working trials instigated under the new employment model that this legislation builds on, are all evidence that this Government do not want to take that supportive culture for granted. On the contrary, they want to strengthen it by modernising working practices so that they bear more resemblance to the terms and conditions available to many in the civilian population. The majority of service personnel will rejoin that civilian population, and we want to do all we can to ensure that family relationships are not undermined by the pressures of military life to the extent that they are unable to make a good transition once the forces’ support structure is no longer in place.

One big pressure on these personal relationships arises from the fact that families and the military would both be described by academics as “greedy institutions”: that is, groups which seek undivided loyalty and encourage weak or no ties with other people or organisations. Currently, many of the demands placed on forces personnel are not negotiable or optional. This can severely tax families who feel that they always come second, and serving personnel who constantly experience role strain: being a good soldier may seem incompatible with being a good husband and father now that societal norms have shifted so much that being a good provider is no longer enough. The introduction of flexible working should make important inroads into the prevailing sense that families, by default, must play second fiddle.

However, these new working patterns will not in themselves be enough to address the high relationship breakdown rates in the military, just as the right to request flexible working introduced in April 2002 in the general population has not made a significant dent in our internationally high divorce and separation rates. Neither has parenting quality vastly improved. Family support has to go beyond welcome efforts to help parents to balance work and family lives and offer them help when relationships are under strain or in real difficulties.

Statistics indicate that divorce rates, especially for those under 30, are much higher in the military in comparison with the general population, not least because marriage rates are also much higher. Moreover, when families falter while still in service, the worry and distraction can have a knock-on effect on a fighting force’s operational strength. When spousal relationships fail, this drastically undermines the support available to military personnel on the home front.

Other service-related pressures include those arising from deployment and combat. Deployment in itself need not necessarily have a long-term negative impact on relationships, but longer deployments and deployment extensions can play a part in poor mental health in the spouse left behind. Also, if there were pre-existing relationship difficulties, this makes it more likely that deployment will be linked to lower satisfaction or other problems. Finally, where deployment and combat are associated with post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, these secondary factors seem to be what is driving poor marital satisfaction.

Surely deployment and combat are integral to military service. Perhaps more interesting and relevant to today’s debate is the finding that if the belief is held by serving personnel and spouses that the military is not supportive enough, this itself is a risk factor for breakdown. So too is perceived lack of support from spouses.

Yet many people come into the services, especially the Army, with a history of childhood family relationship adversity. They may not have had good relationships modelled by their parents, so it is perhaps not surprising that they will struggle to be the supportive wife, husband, partner—or parent—they long to be. Many of those left behind at base will need to learn how to provide meaningful support for their deployed partners and how to help their children become resilient and flourish.

Some relationship and parenting help already happens informally within the military community, and money from the Armed Forces covenant LIBOR fund has enabled Royal Air Force, Royal Navy and Marines charities to team up with Relate. Serving personnel have seven free counselling sessions, whether face to face, by telephone, on webchat or through webcam, so that those deployed overseas do not miss out. Professor Jan Walker, who carried out research with British forces posted overseas in Germany, emphasises the very important role that webchat can play, given that many personnel do not want their commanding officer to know that there are problems. She also highlighted that spouses and partners back home during long deployments could benefit greatly from support—someone to talk to about their relationship who has had good training—even if the relationship is not in difficulty. In the forces culture, the wider societal view that family problems are a sign of weakness is, if anything, amplified, so confidentiality is essential but not always available in the goldfish bowl of life on a base.

This arrangement with Relate can be only temporary, which is why I ask for the Bill to be expanded a little to include a statutory offer of family support, with help for a couple as well as for parenting relationships. Organisations such as the Centre for Social Justice and the Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England, as well as my noble friend Lord Farmer, have long argued for family hubs where someone will have answers for parents with children of all ages who are struggling.

Making effective and early family support statutorily available for this important group of families would establish a bridgehead of support that we can build on in the mainstream population. When the Government commissioned the consultancy giant PwC to draw up plans for multiplying the provision of parenting support to meet the perceived high national level of need, PwC advised that the only way significantly to build capacity was by drawing on employers. Does the Minister agree that the MoD has a unique opportunity to set an example in this area that other employers can follow?